Even in a time where Mexico is in a dire situation concerning its citizen's health, corruption and unease is still present in its governing bodies. Below is an article I find a little daunting, it truly makes you appreciate living in New Zealand!
Mexican police charged with helping hit men
A Mexican judge has jailed 12 federal police investigators accused of leaking information to hit men who ambushed and killed eight officers in a failed attempt to free a high-level cartel member.
Mexico's Attorney General's Office says the suspects worked as investigators for Mexico's Federal Agency of Investigations, the country's equivalent of the FBI.
The office says the 12 investigators allegedly gave information allowing the hit men to carry out the April 19 attack that killed four federal police officers, two federal investigative agents and two prison employees.
Corruption at the Federal level will severely hamper the Mexican government in its fight against the drug cartels. Of course, this is a problem for the United States as well; the drugs are crossing the border and weapons are coming back.
ReplyDeleteInstead of saying, we are thankful to leave in New Zealand, we should try to find the root of the problem and denounce it. In my opinion this kind of corruption is relied to globalization. Poor people in poor countries are desperate to become like western countries. For this reason these people try everything they can do in order to achieve this "dream" of having "western commodities". And because the international system aloud this kind of behavior people is doing it. It is easier to be corrupt rather than to confront the old system. For this reason people in these countries prefer to do it rather than eliminate it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think globalisation should be blamed for the choices individuals make.
ReplyDeletePinning everything on globalisation is a pretty big call to make. After all, corruption did not begin with globalisation and you would be hardpressed to find evidence that it has increased with it. Corruption happens when the incentives outweigh the risks of doing it. Saying that peoples dream of "western commodities" is their main incentive seems a bit simplified don't you think?
ReplyDeleteHow about the countless other motivations to be corrupt? Perhaps a better way to state the argument would be that corruption occurs when the chances of getting caught are minimal (either by lack of surveillance or by a culture that encourages it, such as has been the case in Italy for parts of the twenieth century) and the improvements to the individuals standard of living are great.
In New Zealand, the chances of a police officer getting caught for corruption are relatively high and the advances that an officer could make to their standard of living relatively low. Therefore minimal corruption.
In Mexico though, there is a far lower chance of getting caught, and given the widespread poverty of the country, an officer could greatly increase his (or his families) standard of living by taking bribes or helping a criminal organisation.
If globalisation somehow has an effect on the poverty of a given population and THAT is your argument, then you might be able to make a case. That, though, is a whole 'nother debate!
Very good post, TheRothmanator.
ReplyDeleteRothman, I agree that poverty drives corruption. However, your reluctance to attribute the poverty of Mexico to globalisation is annoying as.
ReplyDeleteIn 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement signed between the United States, Canada and Mexico, had devastating consequences for the Mexican people. In one stroke of the pen Mexico lost its ability to develop independently. Its economy was immediately flooded with heavily-subsidized American agribusiness exports, pushing millions of indigenous farmers off the land and into urban slums to find work. With a massive, desperately impoverished industrial workforce, wages in the cities were driven to unprecedented lows, maximising profits for corporations. Mexico now serves as a cheap-labour pool for American and other Western corporations, our own Fisher n Paykel moving much of its production to northern Mexico last year to exploit the cheap labour. While we talk about how lucky we are to live in New Zealand, these people are assembling our fridges and microwaves. They are paid just enough to survive, they have no rights, they work intolerable hours in intolerable conditions, but they know that if they quit there will be someone else to replace them.
The Mexican people do not live in misery and squalor because of corruption in their justice system, this is a consequence of their poverty. They live this way because of neoliberal globalisation.
Sam O, Mexico was poorer before globalisation, and arguably more corrupt then (partly due to the fact that it was a one party state). It is certainly possible that Nafta has been bad for Mexico, but it is not necessary to argue that the pre-Nafta situation was one in which Mexico had a special ability to develop itself.
ReplyDeleteGenerally trade restrictions and the like, while they may be justified in many ways, tend to (not necessarily, but often) become opportunities for corruption (since the people setting them up and administering them control a lot of discretionary power from which they can benefit in illicit ways).
Xavier :) , while I respect that you are my superior, I’m not sure it is entirely fair to say that Mexico was poorer prior to globalization. Although the GDP of Mexico has risen since the liberalization of its economy, it is generally conceded that inequality has increased drastically. A few in Mexico are very rich, while the majority are extremely poor.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore I don’t think its fair to say that a neoliberal structural adjustment package like the one thrust upon Mexico by the IMF in 1982 allows a nation to develop independently. Shackled with debt, the standard IMF loan conditionalities applied to Mexico. Trade barriers were removed, foreign investment regulations were reduced and SOE’s privatised. Perhaps Mexico did not have a special ability to develop independently prior to NAFTA due to the reforms already in place, but it certainly had a better chance. If Mexico chose to inititate a programme of ISI or something akin today, it would have to break an international trade agreement.
Lastly, indeed globalisation brought democracy to Mexico, but NAFTA completely subverted democracy in Mexico. It was intended to lock Mexico into its structural adjustments, ensuring that successive governments had no ability to pursue nationalist objectives. Salinas even altered the Mexican constitution at the signing of NAFTA, removing the rights of indigenous farmers to collectively own land. The North American Free Trade Agreement only locked Mexico into its poverty, and it is poverty that drives government officials and law enforcement to accept bribes and free drug lords. This was my initial argument.